James’ Empty Blog provides several examples in Evidence for bias in atmospheric temperature trends. The post is a rebuttal to a paper about bias in surface temperature measurement. Here are some examples of the wording that turn off scientists and engineers and create skepticism about the rebuttal itself and AGW in general.

“including two Pielkes and a Christy” – “despite three gratuitous plugs of Watt’s photography site” – “Not that I expect the Pielkes to like that particular interpretation” – “but I can see why he might be perturbed” – “being the political scientist that he is”

In other words, nearly every paragraph has an ad hominem slur. The post reeks contempt and hubris. It addresses the authors of the paper it is rebutting as much as it attempts to address the topic. Go over to “Watt’s photography site” and use the content not only to verify the description but also for comparison and contrast of tone. Look for comments such as those quoted above.

It does seem to be the general method these days to attack the person and not the argument. Just look at the Town Hall brouhaha and health care debate. It is bad enough for politics to devolve to this but scientists should probably cultivate habits of expression that minimize it. To see so much in even an informal blog should make one wonder about the focus on more serious publications of the author.